President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said…

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Democrats today called on Republicans to stop using women as a “political football,” and stop defining this debate, as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did earlier in the day, as a religious issue.

Note that Barbara Boxer’s comment about women taking the pill for medical issues is both a red herring and a telling admission, since it tacitly acknowledges that taking the pill for purely contraceptive reasons is not “medical.”

The Church does not oppose prescribing hormonal treatments, including the pill, to treat actual medical conditions. In the same way, the Church recognizes the need for some therapies that result in sterility; that’s not the same as sterilization per se, i.e., a woman getting her tubes tied or a man getting a vasectomy.

In many cases women who take the pill for medical reasons, including devout Catholic women, are not even sexually active, so its contraceptive effects are purely incidental. Even where this is not the case, medication that has contraceptive side effects can be morally legitimate as long as the contraceptive effects are not the reason (or a reason) for the treatment.

Religious employers that object to contraception can cover legitimate hormonal therapies without violation of conscience. That doesn’t open the door to forcing religious employers to cover measures that are specifically contraceptive, sterilizing or abortifacient.

We are committed, the president is committed, to ensuring that woman have access to contraception without any extra cost, regardless of where they work.

So, there you have it. When Axelrod says “we need to lower our voices,” he doesn’t mean “both sides,” It’s a soft version of “Shut up, he explained.”

Original post

“The art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock” is how Will Rogers famously defined diplomacy. Often enough, it’s an apt definition for politics too.

Strangely, some dogs seem to be buying it. A NewsMax story picked up by Fox News solemnly reported, “Obama Signals He May Back Down on Contraception Mandate,” and opened with the lede, “Roman Catholic pressure to get the Obama administration to back down from its insistence that they provide free contraceptives in their healthcare plans appeared to be paying off on Tuesday.”

Really? Is that what Obama is signaling?

The story quotes David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, telling MSNBC’s Morning Joe, “I think we need to lower our voices and get together.”

“Lower our voices.” And whose voices have been raised? Why, the president’s critics—a broad coalition representing a wide range of religious (or non-religious) and political perspectives, all concerned about the administration’s blithe disregard for first amendment protections of religious freedom.

The clamor of critical opinion is loud and growing. It’s been suggested that it could cost Obama reelection. I’m sure Axelrod would like “us” to lower “our” voices—at least until November. Note that this statement didn’t come from the press secretary or a top policy adviser, but an adviser to the president’s reelection campaign.

Axelrod also said:

We have great respect for the work that these institutions do, and we certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.

Well, that sounds not entirely unpromising, in theory. But then the story goes on:

Axelrod said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had already given churches an exemption to the mandate, against the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine. “The question now is about these extended affiliated institutions … and there are tens of thousands – hundreds of thousands – of women who work in these hospitals and universities who are not Catholic or they may be Catholic and they use birth control. The question is whether they are going to have the same package that every other woman in the country has to the same right and access to basic preventive care.”

Catch that? Just look at how generous Sebelius has already been with churches: It’s not like she’s making the Church pay for contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for employees of actual parishes and dioceses! Even though the Institute of Medicine thought she should! What more do you want?

And the last sentence gives it all away: In the eyes of the administration, coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients is “basic preventive care.” It’s a question of whether all women have the “same rights.”

That’s not something this administration is looking to back down from. Anyone who thinks otherwise is asking for a rock upside the head by year’s end.

NFP Catholics might be a small number, but people are at different stages of conversion. There will not be a Stalinist purge of sinners.

dch,

The word you are looking for is creative minority, countercultural. I personally do not see the point in a church that resembles the culture. It would not be the sign of contradiction the Gospels speak of. I would sooner be an atheist.

Posted by savvy on Friday, Jan, 4, 2013 2:25 PM (EST):

Laura,

The issue is confusing worship with conscience. A writer who specializes in fiction, cannot be forced to take on a contract for something else, just because it’s legal.

The mandate states that everything done outside a place of worship is not religious. So a religious order that produces jams and sells them to make a living is not religious. A Bible publisher is not religious, etc.

No one is responsible for what someone else has said so why would President say I’m sorry for what someone has said give me a break. If you didn’t say it don’t feel bad for it or ask for forgiveness.

Posted by Laurie on Saturday, Mar, 3, 2012 3:58 PM (EST):

Here we go again with the “let’s help women” theme..or “it’s medicine and women deserve their medicine”..stop it! We women are strong, we are the ones who go through labor. Plus let’s look at what we women get…we get to take the pill, take a shot in the arm, have iud’s, floppy disks, don’t forget the patch oh and lest we not forget getting our tubes tied, they take our eggs “for science”, they want us to abort our babies so they can sell the body parts for money…we work for families to help put food on our tables because either the guys are not there for us or…because society would rather see us work than stay home and nuture our kids and love our husbands…I can get a job that pays more than what my husband can find, the men are the minorities to me…YES, do this in the name of women because we deserve our medicine…well don’t give me that hogwash…we deserve our medicine and what do they make for the men…VIAGRA and a HOLY CONDOM…yes we women deserve it alright, that’s why most of us are on some sort of anti-depressent. PLease Mr. President and all of you congressmen and women do not do this in the name of women…you are marketing us like we were a slab of beef…don’t use us to get what you want to take from our young daughters and sons, who are so confused over even what gender they should be. The church does take care of the women, children and widowers first and fore most as it is said to do in the Bible. This is a BIG HUGE MARKETING GAME AIMED AT MAKING MONEY….Sure there are a few that fall few the holes, they are the ones we should help, but not like this…this is a bandaid that pays planned parenthood and others millions. WE WOMEN ARE ALOT SMARTER THAN YOU GIVE US CREDIT FOR…YES WOMEN…YES WE NEED TO UNITE TO STOP FROM BEING SO USED.. God help us if we are too blind to see, Mother Mary open our eyes that we may see Jesus.

Posted by stan chaz on Monday, Feb, 27, 2012 9:49 AM (EST):

What a circus. Republicans condemn condoms! Republicans praise children of rape as a gift from God. Republicans legislate forced trans-vaginal probes. Republicans hate women (and men) who want to plan their families. What’s next? Republicans mandate missionary-position only? I hate to admit it, but Newt was right. ‘Cause Newt and all his Republican friends SHOULD set up a moon colony…. AND GO THERE! Then, they could tell each other what to do, and how to live, and who to love…. while leaving the REST of us alone, in peace, here on Earth. Newt, I always KNEW that you were a problem-solver. Unfortunately, you and your Republican friends ARE the problem…

Posted by Fr. Charles LaCroix on Sunday, Feb, 26, 2012 2:25 PM (EST):

Steve, thanks for the article. Just a reminder to all readers that the pill may be used medically as long as the patient practices abstinence. Otherwise the abortifacient action of the drug changes the issue too. God bless!

Posted by Laura on Tuesday, Feb, 21, 2012 6:12 PM (EST):

By the way, if 15% use it for legitimate medical purposes, that means 85%—the vast majority—do not.
What do you call “legitimate medical purposes?” There are legitimate reasons for not wanting a baby and a particular time in life, including economic, mental-health, and lifestyle. Or does “medical” only mean “physical” to you?

The question isn’t freedom for religion, it’s keeping religion out of our healthcare. The Bible is NOT a science book.

Posted by JIm on Tuesday, Feb, 21, 2012 1:03 PM (EST):

None of you get the big picture, do you?

The mandate is popular, the Catholic Church’s position on contraception is not. Nevertheless, it is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by SCOTUS, specifically five conservative Catholic justices.

Obama will politically benefit from anti-Catholicism, but that’s merely an added bonus. The entire purpose is for the government to mandate provide a popular benefit and for the Court to strike it down to support the “arbitrary” preferences of private insurers. Obama will declare the private insurance system broken and push for single payer. After an unpopular SCOTUS decision, he may very well have the political capital to do it.

The Catholic Church has no problem with single payer, as they deal with it in the rest of the world. Obama will be seen as a reasonable individual willing to work with the Church and the Republicans will be seen as fools.

Posted by enness on Monday, Feb, 20, 2012 9:54 PM (EST):

Re: Barbara Boxer’s quote: we HAVE ‘access.’ I was one of those 15% (though I wouldn’t call my medical issues serious, nor would I recommend taking it for the reasons I did, as I figured out several years too late); I went to Walgreens every three months and paid for it myself. Access is not what this is about.
By the way, if 15% use it for legitimate medical purposes, that means 85%—the vast majority—do not. This is just the statistic I’ve been wondering about and hoping to find. The only thing she didn’t provide was a citation. How about it, Sen. Boxer? Bet you didn’t think you were helping me.

Posted by enness on Monday, Feb, 20, 2012 9:48 PM (EST):

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”
-
We HAVE ‘access.’ I was one of those 15% (though I wouldn’t call my medical issues serious); I went to Walgreens every three months and paid for it myself. Access is not what this is about.
By the way, if 15% use it for legitimate medical purposes, that means 85%—the vast majority—do not. This is just the statistic I’ve been wondering about and hoping to find. The only thing she didn’t provide was a citation. How about it, Sen. Boxer? Bet you didn’t think you were helping me.

The political issue is not contraception, it is religious freedom. I think there is sincere support for religious freedom in both parties. It is the Obama administration that is trampling the Church. We are doing our best to resist.

Roe v Wade is NOT the law in our country because a) the Supreme Court is not a legislative body and b) no law is valid that directly contradicts fundamental human rights, of which the right to life is the first and foremost.

Nobody is talking here about outlawing contraception. The question is whether the state can force the Church to pay for it.

God’s name is sacred and you cannot judge the hearts of 98% of anyone with enough certainty to affix God’s name to your judgment. Someday each of us will stand before God and give account for every careless word. Let’s live like we believe that.

I was born and raised Catholic ,I truly believe in my heart that this is being used as a political pawn, the Republican party could care less about the Catholic church and it’s teaching, do you not see it is using the church. I do not believe n abortion, contraception is a matter between the couple and god and needs to be discussed with their Priest and after much prayer, not on a political debate or television nightly news ....I am appalled…. that my church is being trampled on and you all are allowing it to be…George Bush did not do anything about abortion, and people certainly took the pill then too, it is your hatred of Obama that has spurred this and I am afraid God is not happy with him or you…Roe v Wade is the Law in our country, I do not like it but it is, the pill has been around for almost 50 years, but just now, it is all against the Catholic Church. let us examine our conscience here..what do you really hate more? I say yes and end to abortion, contraception is a private matter. keep it out of politics, I am 62 yrs old, and I am dis heartened as to what this is doing to my church.many are fighting for the real reason, 98% out of hate for Obama and this is God’s truth. I suggest you examine your conscience and make a good confession.

Posted by John Santiago on Saturday, Feb, 18, 2012 3:12 PM (EST):

A fallen presidential administrtion with “puppets on strings”. A Democrat party with no mind of their own. Heck why not put Hugo Chavez (leader of Venezuela) on the Ballot for 2012?. Secular media full of propaganda deluding peoples’s minds 24/7. America has really “dumbed down”. Secularists, “think tanks”, liberals have put the public in “animal cages” we are looked at as “dumb beasts”. God is in charge not man.

Okay, no, wait, I get it. Winston thinks that “affirming people’s right to choose their religion” and “affirming other religions” mean the same thing.

Winston, if it helps, I affirm people’s right to affirm and practice whatever religion they believe is true—to be Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, atheists, what have you.

I do not affirm, per se, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca or atheism.

All of these worldviews (except atheism) have elements of truth that can be affirmed (and of course even atheists believe many things that are true), but they are also all deficient, in that they fall short of what God has definitively made known through Jesus Christ, the Savior of all mankind.

So, yes, people have a right to choose whatever religion they believe is true. But I do not believe that all religions are equal or that it doesn’t matter what religion you practice.

“So, you affirm people’s right to choose religion, so long as they choose YOUR religion. If that is the Catholic Church’s position and you are a ‘good’ Catholic, then I take back my apology: YOU ARE SHALLOW.”

I admit it, I’m stumped. I consider myself pretty expert at unraveling other people’s misunderstandings, confusions, half-baked conclusions, what have you, but honestly, I don’t know where to begin with this one.

I’m open to suggestions. Does anyone out there have the foggiest clue what Winston might be talking about? Anyone? Anyone? I’m serious.

Posted by Winston on Wednesday, Feb, 15, 2012 4:06 PM (EST):

Ok, I can’t leave it alone—
So, you affirm people’s right to choose religion, so long as they choose YOUR religion. If that is the Catholic Church’s position and you are a “good” Catholic, then I take back my apology: YOU ARE SHALLOW.

If Paul’s Pantry or any other place want to refuse money, that’s your decision. If people in the Milwaukee area hear about it and want to rant at them, that’s their decision. I don’t give a rat’s a$$.

I would affirm any religion that practiced what it preached—yours does not. I affirm people’s right to be Buddhists, Jewish, Voodoo, Hindu, Shinto, Wicca, or any other religion. Catholics claim to love everyone, but they only love themselves and the Pope. You have small minds and big mouths.

I can tell you that what you say you were told on another NCR blog is incorrect. That is why your second premise is incorrect.

Everyone who refuses to repent their sins will spend eternity in hell. I speak of those who reach the age of moral responsibility. The idea of limbo is theological speculation, not Catholic dogma. The Church commends unbaptized infants to God’s mercy.

When did I say I would be affirming of anyone else’s religion? I said I affirm their right to choose their religion. I don’t notice you being affirming of my religion, so I’m sure you understand very well other people aren’t affirming of religions they disagree with.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 8:37 PM (EST):

Somehow I get the feeling you are only paying lip service because you consider it “un-Catholic” if you say anything else. I think you are parroting the sound-bites of Catholic propaganda and do not think I am as “good” as you. I think the “good” you will for be is to become a Catholic. Obviously I don’t think Catholic faith in itself makes a person good.
I was told on another NCR blogger’s post that Catholics are automatically excommunicated by definition if they condone birth control (that’s why I clarified the 98% quote). I was also told that if I don’t repent “my sins” I will spend eternity in hell. How is that loving people and affirming their religion? Even newborns must go to limbo if they die before they are baptised. How is my second premise incorrect? Is this some kind of “tough” love?
It’s OK if you don’t love me, or even like me. I still think your ideas on morality are shallow. I prefer to weigh different ideas that blindly follow one religious leader.
I may take another look to see if you have a reply—I don’t care if you want the last word as you are correct that we won’t agree on anything.
Bye!

Winston: Literally every assertion of fact in your last comment not relating to your personal dispositions is wrong, with the following exceptions: It’s true that we haven’t met, and it’s true that The Catholic Church says it affirms religious freedom.

Premise 2 is factually incorrect. What you call Premise 3 was meant to be a conclusion, not a premise, but it doesn’t follow, because Premise 2 is wrong. What I suspect you mean by “If you ‘help’ people because the Catholic Church tells you to” (i.e., “If the only reason you help anyone is in obedience to the Church’s authority”) is wrong, and therefore your conclusion doesn’t follow.

The only way I have of loving you is willing your good. I do will your good. I have nothing else to offer you, apparently not even answers to your questions, since your eye is so jaundiced that you see black when I say white. God bless you.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 7:40 PM (EST):

Mea culpa—Your ideas are shallow. I haven’t met you personally.

Premise 1. The Catholic Church says it affirms religious freedom.
Premise 2. The Catholic Church automatically excommunicates me for thinking outside the faith.
Premise 3. Catholics are only giving lip-service to religious freedom.

If you “help” people because the Catholic Church tells you to, you don’t really like people, do you? You are only saying you affirm religious freedom, but it can’t be discussed in this forum. You are not open to other ideas. Sorry, I don’t buy your pretense that you love everybody because you are Catholic. I’m pretty sure you don’t love me.

Am I being punked here, or what? No, really. Everything you say is the exact opposite of the truth.

First you insult me (“I have a hard time trying to figure out how you can be so shallow”), then you complain that I insulted you (when I haven’t). If you want to insult me, that’s your business, but it takes some chutzpah to say “How can you be so shallow, and how can you insult me? That’s not friendly.”

It’s precisely because Catholic hospitals treat everybody, among other things, that the Obama administration says “Then you can’t really be Catholic.” On the contrary, as Cardinal Bevilacqua used to say, “We don’t help people because THEY are Catholic, we help them because WE are Catholic.” It’s a long-standing Catholic thing. You might have heard of Mother Teresa, for instance.

You say “stop providing your services to the secular population.” In other words, stop practicing your religion. Sorry, no can do. It’s part of our religion to love and help everybody, not just our fellow Catholics. You may have heard of the Good Samaritan. What you are saying is “Don’t exercise your first amendment right to free exercise of your religion. No, we won’t do that.

As for not following me on your question … are you really not following, or are you playing with me?

Premise 1. The Catholic Church affirms religious freedom.
Premise 2. I am really Catholic, i.e., I affirm what the Church affirms.
Conclusion: I affirm religious freedom.

Taking away people’s freedom to choose their faith would be contrary to religious freedom, and thus contrary to settled Catholic teaching. As a faithful Catholic, this is something I would not do. Asking me if I would do it is like asking me if I’m really Catholic because the Catholic Church has a position on that which is contrary to what you’re asking me if I would do.

I hope it’s clear, now.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 6:34 PM (EST):

I don’t get the simile of “Would I take away someone’s right to choose their religion” like asking you if you are not really Catholic. Please explain.
Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities may have started out serving this country for centuries, but that was in times when it was assumed everyone was a Christian and saying you weren’t meant anything from shunning to hanging. Times have changed whether you like it or not.

Catholics obviously don’t want to serve non-Catholics, so if you don’t want to support government policies that reflect non-Catholic values, then stop providing your services to the secular population. Don’t pay into the system and don’t take from the system. Then you can screen for the people who you approve.

You prefer to insult me so you can avoid the questions you don’t like—because you don’t have an answer. That’s not friendly.

Friend, I am happy to answer honest questions all day long, as time permits, but you need to try harder than cliches like “imposing your religion.”

As a show of good faith, I will point out the obvious: Religious employers are not asking employees to swear to attend Mass on Sundays and abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent. They aren’t asking them to flee fornication or adultery.

They simply want to be able to offer employees who choose to work for them benefits packages that don’t violate the religious principles of the organization in question. That’s not “imposing” anything on anyone.

Catholic hospitals, schools and charities have been serving this country for centuries. This administration is effectively ordering them to shut down or stop being Catholic. Neither alternative is acceptable.

I didn’t answer your other question because I didn’t think you were serious. Religious freedom is a matter of settled Catholic faith. Asking me “Would I take away someone’s right to choose their religion?” is like asking me “Are you not really a Catholic?” I am really a Catholic. Does that answer your question?

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 5:41 PM (EST):

Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 3:59 PM (EST):

Wow. I knew the “98% of Catholic women use contraception” claim was wrong … I just didn’t know it was THIS wrong.
<i>
As usual, you are seeing what you want to see, not what was written: It said 98% of CATHOLIC women, not 98% of all women.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 5:31 PM (EST):

I’m hanging out here because I have a hard time trying to figure out how you can be so shallow. I’m horrified and fascinated at the same time.
I didn’t start out as a troll—I really wanted an answer as to what would be the Catholic solution to my sister’s situation.
And you didn’t answer my other question—would you take away a person’s right to choose their religion, especially if it allows birth control or abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?

“Well, all you have to do is stop providing insurance—period. Insurance companies, like Christian Brothers, will just have to become non-profit and not sell health insurance to people who want birth control as part of their plan.”

You don’t get it, do you? None of the things you’re talking about are allowed under the HHS mandate.

Under the new rules, the only options available to an institution like Catholic University of America are a) pay for immoral services for their employees, b) pay a fine of up to $2,000 per employee per year (millions of dollars for a large university) or c) close their doors.

(And of course you keep saying “contraception” as if abortifacients and sterilization weren’t even part of the discussion.)

“You seem to want it both ways—freedom of religion and right to impose your religion on others.”

...what, sorry? ’Fraid I zoned out there for a minute, friend. Meaningless phrases like “impose your religion” tend to put me to … yawn. I feel like a nap.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 5:01 PM (EST):

P.S. again—
I suppose my sister has excommunicated herself by choosing to have her tubes tied instead of going through another miscarriage. Since she is not Catholic anymore, what gives you the right to make her and her husband choose abstenance and/or separate to comply with Catholic rules?

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 4:58 PM (EST):

Well, all you have to do is stop providing insurance—period. Insurance companies, like Christian Brothers, will just have to become non-profit and not sell health insurance to people who want birth control as part of their plan.
You seem to want it both ways—freedom of religion and right to impose your religion on others. Last time I checked the constitution, everyone has the right to the religion they choose. Would you take away that right to choose as well?

“Last time I checked the constitution, there was no right for churches to be exempt from taxes when they do business that is not non-profit. If the Catholic Church wants to pay their employees’ insurance with secular, for-profit insurance companies, the insurance companies have to comply with federal policies. If you don’t like it, get the Catholic Church to start its own insurance company and exclude contraception from its insurance policies.”

To clarify: Neither of the avenues of relief you propose are viable under the HHS mandate. You are apparently not familiar with the full extent of White House tyranny we face.

First, the mandate applies to nonprofits as well as for-profits. (To address another common confusion: The mandate also is not tied to accepting federal funds. Nonprofit charities that don’t take a dime of state funding are just as much on the hook as anyone.)

Secondly, Catholic insurance companies (which already exist, such as Christian Brothers) will not be permitted to exclude immoral services (not just contraception, but also sterilization and abortifacients) from coverage offerings.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 4:22 PM (EST):

P.S. My sister’s insurance company will pay for her sterilization.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 4:18 PM (EST):

@Mouse
Last time I checked the constitution, there was no right for churches to be exempt from taxes when they do business that is not non-profit. If the Catholic Church wants to pay their employees’ insurance with secular, for-profit insurance companies, the insurance companies have to comply with federal policies. If you don’t like it, get the Catholic Church to start its own insurance company and exclude contraception from its insurance policies.

Posted by Winston on Tuesday, Feb, 14, 2012 4:11 PM (EST):

I suppose there is no Catholic answer to my sister’s problem. They are going through with getting her tubes tied—she did not want her husband to be infertile.

Wow. I knew the “98% of Catholic women use contraception” claim was wrong … I just didn’t know it was THIS wrong.

Posted by Patagonia on Sunday, Feb, 12, 2012 11:55 PM (EST):

Dang - Sorry for the double post. The site keeps telling me that it thinks im a spammer.

Posted by Patagonia on Sunday, Feb, 12, 2012 11:25 PM (EST):

“One thing that has gone largely unsaid in all this is that the HHS mandate is a violation of the separation of Church & State. Church & state are separate, therefore the state cannot tell the Church what to do. Not only is this a violation of our basic freedoms, but also a violation of our governmental system that, at a very fundamental level, separates Church & state. ” -Ecce Homo blog.

The meaning behind separation of church and state which Obama and most Americans either completely fail to see or just dont care at all about is that it was primarily put forth to protect the Church from government, not to keep “religion” out of society, which is how everyone loves to interpret it. Even if free access to contraception was a “right”, which it is not, the government has no right to impose itself and mandate how the operations or services of religious institutions work. Basic principles of our constitution being shamelessly violated here. Wake up, America!!

Posted by Patagonia on Sunday, Feb, 12, 2012 11:23 PM (EST):

“One thing that has gone largely unsaid in all this is that the HHS mandate is a violation of the separation of Church & State. Church & state are separate, therefore the state cannot tell the Church what to do. Not only is this a violation of our basic freedoms, but also a violation of our governmental system that, at a very fundamental level, separates Church & state. ” -Ecce Homo blog.

The meaning behind separation of church and state which Obama and most Americans either completely fail to see or just dont care at all about is that it was primarily put forth to protect the Church from government, not to keep “religion” out of society, which is how everyone loves to interpret it. Even if free access to contraception was a “right”, which it is not, the government has no right to impose itself and mandate how the operations or services of religious institutions work. Basic principles of our constitution here. Wake up, America!! Your basic liberties are on the line. God bless the bishops who are standing firm against this radical administrations power grab, not simply to protect the religious liberty of the Catholic Church, but for the religious liberty of all.

Posted by Jim McGovern on Sunday, Feb, 12, 2012 7:18 PM (EST):

If Obama got out of the bedrooms of the nation, there would not be any problem. And he really looks stupid when he claims that abortion, the right of a mother to abort (kill) her baby, is an act of religious freedom. (Natural law claims the murder of another human being is wrong.)

Probably takes his orders from Hillary and Planned Parenthood.

His legacy is Afghanistan and over a million abortions… both disasters.

Sigh. Tom, I was hoping one of my readers might answer your questions, but I guess I’ll do it myself.

Your moral equivalences are false. Purchasing moral services from a store that also sells immoral services is only remote material cooperation in evil; purchasing immoral services is direct cooperation in evil.

The HHS mandate makes immoral services part of employer-provided insurance, and thus part of the benefits package of working for the religious employer. By doing so, the mandate necessarily undermines the religious character and culture of the institution, and the authority of the sponsoring church, thereby curtailing the free exercise of religion.

The institution is put in a position of submitting to and cooperating in a state-madated system in which it contributes, via direct payment for services, to the availability of immoral services for its own employees and others.

The normative character of religious belief is removed from the realm of practical consequences of embracing a particular religious culture and relegated to a realm of “Do whatever you want, it’s up to you.” How Jewish would a Jewish deli be if employees were entitled to free ham and cheese sandwiches from a vending machine in the break room?

Posted by Tom on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 6:27 PM (EST):

I see that President Obama is implementing an accommodation. I thank God, President Obama and the Whitehouse for their efforts toward answering my question. Thank you all too.

Posted by TRose on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 3:41 PM (EST):

Wait - Colleen, (and other pro-conception women here) Are you Catholic? If you are, do you truly feel it is okay to ignore the teachings of the Church and still claim to be Catholic? I’m not talking about occasionally falling into sins that are inconsistent with Church doctrines — I’m talking about purposefully maintaining public and fervent disagreement with Church teachings but still claiming to be part of the religion. Because it doesn’t work. It confuses non-Catholics (and the media) about exactly what the Church’s teachings are, it leads lukewarm Catholics even further away from the truth of the faith, and frankly, it’s dishonest. You can call yourself a former Catholic, a fallen-away Catholic, or whatever (I’ve been one myself), but standing in a Catholic church doesn’t make you Catholic.

If you have serious questions about doctrines, it is important to study, to ask questions, to investigate the reasons behind the rules. The Church has a long history of amazing thinkers and philosophers (including many women like St. Teresa of Avila, a Doctor of the Church) and arrived at its decisions carefully and prayerfully through the guidance of Scripture, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit. The Church has always had tremendous respect for women and our vital role in the world and in the family. The Church empowers women in a way that secular society cannot. So, by all means, stay with Catholicism if you can (and I hope you do), but you must be true to the Faith. Support real Catholic women who cherish life from conception to natural death, who make tough decisions every day and who have no regrets because they are secure in the love of our Savior and our Blessed Mother. These women are out there, and they would value your support and friendship.

Posted by Mary from Maryland on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 2:05 PM (EST):

I hope Catholics do not vote for him if he does reverse this decision. The fact that he would trample constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom to promote the trumped-up “right” to contraception and abortion speaks volumes about his disregard for both organized religion and our constitution. No one who belong to any church or who respects the rule of law and our constitution cannot in good conscience vote for this evil man. His election was certainly historic—the great mistake ever made in U.S. history.

Grey Bear: You’re saying that because your soul is between God and you, I shouldn’t correct you when you comment on my blog that we shouldn’t pray for Obama and damning him to hell—but you get to judge the bishops who are your shepherds and pastors?

I’m not saying we can’t criticize the bishops, in a spirit of charity and respect. But don’t tell me you have a right to post comments directly contrary to the law of charity and not expect correction.

Silent hypocrites= women Catholics. You use birth control and you want to get it free but you are willing to keep quiet on this isssue-for shame. Women who have gone before you fought for the rights you have and you are willing to sacrifice their efforts by going along with what the bishops say you want. You are willing to accept another Bush-like president because you are being tricked into believing that this is a religous freedon issue. It is not. It is time you found your voice and make it heard. This is not the time for silence.

Posted by Grey Bear on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 1:04 PM (EST):

My Soul is between God & me, he knows me well. This slaughterer of Babies is responsible for over 150 of them perishing every hour, where is the collective Catholic outrage over that ? Contraception is bad but in comparison to this tragic slaughter of Innocent Infants it is a minor infraction. Why does the USCCB through the corrupt CCHD collection give money they tell us is for the poor to groups that are Pro-Abortion, pro-homosexual marriage & outright anti-Catholic. Where is the outrage over that ? Please address that, maybe then they will correct the problem.

Colleen Holman: Way to devalue women’s choices and freedom. We get it. You respect women’s choices, when they’re the “right” ones.

Posted by colleen holman on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 12:51 PM (EST):

Catholic women need to stop cowering under bishops’ skirts. Catholic women use birth control. That is a fact. Do you want to pay for it and pretend you don’t use it to comform to the male heirachy’s opinion on the subject. Let your voice be heard.
Catholic’s should be disillusioned with their leaders when the leaders are not representing them in a fair andd honest manner.

Grey Bear: I offered you fraternal correction, as I am in some measure obliged to do. There is no comparison between saying “The Lord rebuke you” to an erring brother and declaring a human being for whom Christ died to be beyond both prayer and conversation, since he “belongs in hell.” Those are words that, taking root and coming to full flower, can send you to hell. If you do not forgive Obama’s sins, God will not forgive your sins. I am more concerned about your soul than your vote. So should you be.

Posted by Grey Bear on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 11:17 AM (EST):

The Lord rebuke ME ? So, it’s alright for you to call the Lord down on me but It’s not right for me to demand that the incompetent one goes HOME ? Read his views in the books he supposedly authored Steven. Like the radical muslims that killed the 26 Catholics in Africa on Christmas Day he will take the side of the Islamist Murderers when times get bad, in his own words. His every action is bent on making them BAD & destroying this Country from the inside. I’m sorry, I’ll fight to the death for God but I’m not going to stand there & let the “enemy” do to me & mine as he pleases. For instance, Our Bishops granted ACORN over 7 million, they put this abomination in office, the fraud trials will never punish him, how about investigating the CCHD & put an end to this corruption. They (He & his party of death) look at your attitude as weakness, call him what he is & just maybe 54% of the Catholics won’t vote for him again.

Posted by David on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 8:43 AM (EST):

Love your enemy; they have been mesmerized by the Enemy and are captives.
The falsehood emanating from this camp says: “the end justifies the means”.
And that is not surprising, since that is the problem; “the end does not justify the means”.

Grey Bear: The Lord rebuke you, friend. The president is a soul created in God’s image, for whom Christ died. He is not the Enemy, and even if he is an enemy, Christ commands us to love and forgive our enemies. If you do not forgive Obama’s trespasses, God will not forgive your trespasses. If you tell Obama to go to hell, and mean it with all your heart, and do not repent, you will go to hell.

Posted by Grey Bear on Friday, Feb, 10, 2012 12:40 AM (EST):

You don’t pray for or converse with the Devil, you tell him to go to HELL, where he belongs. The easiest way to make this go away is to evict the Dictator from the White House in Nov. 2012 & everyone who is backing him in the “party of death”. My faith will only be renewed in our Bishops when the USCCB abolishes their funding of anti-Catholic, Pro-Abortion & left wing partisan groups through their “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” !!!!! The Diocese of Chicago actually trained, hired & aided the community organizer that now occupies the oval office.

Posted by William A. Kysela on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:52 PM (EST):

We are all praying for the President - He needs to listen to his business and religious leaders a lot more and spend less time on the golf course. When it comes to the official business of this land and CHRISTIAN country, “shuckin’ and jivin’” just is not going to cut it - This is a Christian country founded by Christians for anyone to come here. It will stay a Christian nation FOREVER! I spent 8 years of my life in the Military and am still ready to stand and die for this nation. Every time I see a veteran it strengthens my resolve. WE are not Socialists nor Communists, although they also are welcome here. We are always ready to help anyone who wants to get ahead, but sooner or later we all need to get on our own, work hard and pay the piper!! America, let’s get to work!!! As for contraception, abortion etc. I am sure glad my parents didn’t practice it and the way our President is living it up, I am sure HE is glad his parents didn’t do any of that “stuff” too!!!
Enough already!! Let’s get back to BASICS - LIFE - LIBERTY - PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

Posted by William F. Folger on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:49 PM (EST):

@ cowalker
Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Feb 9, 2012 2:30 PM (EST):
“There is no longer a general belief that salvation comes only through one particular church, or even one particular religion. There are millions of mixed faith marriages in America, and it’s commonly believed that it’s barbaric to assume that sincerely believing or unbelieving people will go to hell for their particular belief or unbelief.”
.
Three short, informative articles on “salvation outside the Catholic Church” and on a potential pitfall when claiming invincible ignorance, especially in the Information Age:
.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950531.HTM
,
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm
.
http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=442662&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=8
.
Regarding information on websites & in endless literature generated over history, old and developing, it is clear that without a true authority existing, Bible interpretation leads to growing fractures. And fractures are contrary to what Jesus prayed for in the Garden. Too many fail to *confront themselves* with the certain truth that God is no Idiot. Only an Idiot-god would leave “his people” without that *necessary* authority. Bottom line: don’t gamble your eternity on a too-late claim of “invincible Ignorance”. No one goes to hell except through his own fault.
.
Finally, friend cowalker, you misjudge the good Bishops overall and you prove what is wrong with those who engage too much in “negative ads” to influence votes. Your “observable fact” would not pass a Catholic-type “Snopes” check: as noted by others above, the bishops’ WISE FOCUS is on the broad issue of protecting Religious Freedom. They will come around on teaching methods re contraception, et al, in this pastorally difficult period which is partly their fault and partly the laity’s fault

Posted by William F. Folger on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:18 PM (EST):

@ cowalker:
Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Feb 9, 2012 2:30 PM (EST):
“I’m just saying that Republican motives for attacking the administration on this matter are political. …. they don’t seem to be inclined to make religion a centerpiece of their campaigns.”
.
As noted by others above, a secular Republican Party does not have religion as a centerpiece; neither is the Republican Party irreligious or anti-religious. The Republican Party CAN & SHOULD defend the Judeo-Christian foundation for the U.S.A. which includes the Declaration of Independence referenced in the dating of the initial signing of the Constitution – a significant signal because it was not necessary to *doubly date* the Constitution that way.
.
But here are some examples of how a too-moderate Republican leadership threw away golden chances to beat the Democrats who, as a Party, insult God on major fronts.
Example 1, from 2006:
.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/29/video-harold-ford-says-republicans-don’t-love-but-just-fear-god/
.
HAROLD FORD, JR.: “My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there’s one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord”.
.
In the bottom video (just a few viewing minutes) then-competing Republican candidate Bob Corker entirely misses the importance and meaning of Fear of the Lord (which is a salutary fear grounded in profound respect and awe, *not* servile fear!) and focuses instead on the *subjective* matter of Love for God which is easy to feign and dispute. The Big Republican Mistake was that, unlike subjective Love, “Fear of the Lord” or its *absence* is documented by a given Party’s record on life issues, especially on the Right to Life without which all other rights are meaningless.
.
Regarding the Republican Record on the Issue of killing God’s developing children, the Republicans had the Democrats by the jugular but just let them go. The national Dems saw the threat to their party and swept down to Tennessee to put out the fire by saying it was just local mis-speak. 2006 was not a good year for Republicans. Moderates lack the zeal to seize the moment even when it was an unintended gift to Republicans. In 2012 that same lack of zeal showed early on when certain prominent Republicans wanted to suppress “social issues”.
.
Example 2:
Republicans won’t cite President Obama as a Disrespecter of God though the disgraceful Obama record is thick on that self-accusing charge as we’ll see herein. Had Republicans studied Obama’s pre-election speeches and relational politics they would find a claimed Christian heralding the importance of people having EMPATHY for others, so much so that Sen. Obama voted against USSC nominee John Roberts substantially on grounds Roberts had insufficient empathy for being a Justice, in Obama’s opinion. So, Obama is keenly Empathy-Aware – big time.
.
Again, here is how Republicans continue to cause their own failures and limit their success. In his 2006 Call to Renewal Speech, Sen. Obama *chided* fellow Christians for not reading their bibles. All that Republicans who respect God’s new children before birth need to do is to demand self-professed Christian President Obama read John 1: 3 – “through Him (Jesus Christ) all things were made” and then renounce his facilitation of killing God-Jesus’ own children. Since newly developing babies cannot be excluded from John 1:3, ALL such developing children are Jesus Personal Treasures. Consider that Jesus must watch their daily slaughter FACILITATED in significant measure by Obama’s willful policies. Ergo, President Obama shows ZERO empathy for his own professed savior! Obama thereby convicts himself as a serious disrespecter of God and cannot be trusted with a second term.

Posted by Tom on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 10:37 PM (EST):

Could someone please explain how an employer allowing employees to purchase an insurance policy through an insurance company is “forcing” the employer to pay for illicit services? Wouldn’t it be the insurance company that is paying the costs and the policy enrollees indirectly subsidizing the insurance company? Is it a sin to purchase a policy that happens to offer coverage for illicit services? Because people do that everyday it seems. I also shop at stores where my purchases might help subsidize the sale of other things I don’t approve of. Am I not allowed to shop at those stores because of that? I haven’t seen a clear and convincing explanation why this insurance thing with Catholic hospitals and universities is morally different from everyday situations where hundreds of millions of people buy insurance and shop at stores that have their hands in things we might not approve of. Have the bishops or anyone prepared such an analysis for people to examine? If so, where can we find it?

Posted by TRose on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 8:45 PM (EST):

Signed the petition today. Thanks for the link!

Posted by Mouse on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 7:57 PM (EST):

The last time I checked, there was no right to free contraception in the Constitution, or to have anyone in particular provide you with contraception! But we do have a little thing called Freedom of Religious Expression in this country…or did.

Also, doesn’t matter if many Catholics violate Church teaching on this matter. That’s no excuse to persecute and tyrannize those who do follow Church teaching! And there are many who aren’t even Catholic who don’t agree with this tremendous goverment overreach.

It seems that Obama thinks he is King of the USA, and Sebelius and the others are his Court!

Posted by Winston on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 7:49 PM (EST):

Sorry, Chris—
She tried everything, including NaPro. Something is just wrong and she gets extremely depressed because nothing helps, especially comments from people who tell her to keep it up.
She and her husband love each other very much, and can accept not having children if that seems to be God’s plan. She has had six miscarriages and they both agree that they can’t go through it again. It seems wrong to just let things happen and contraception seems to be the only solution.
I’m not a troll—socially inept or otherwise.

Posted by ChrisKABA on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 6:07 PM (EST):

Yes Winston,

(Assuming you’re not simply being a socially inept troll…)

Start here: http://www.naprotechnology.com/

As to recurring miscarriages, here’s an associated location to start:

http://www.popepaulvi.com

Posted by tom on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 5:53 PM (EST):

Please, Seriously Elise?

Posted by Winston on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 5:32 PM (EST):

Sadly, my sister has had several miscarriages and no longer wants to risk another pregnancy. I think she and her husband should not be forced into abstinence. Is there another method besides contraception, or should they divorce and have my sister become a nun?

Posted by ChrisKABA on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 4:23 PM (EST):

@Rita,

First, the mandate doesn’t make those things “Free”, it just forces everyone in the country to pay for it, even further removing accountability from people who make self-centered & poor decisions based on the popular refrain “If it feels good, do it.”

Second, $10 a month for the pill, or $20 for an “emergency contraceptive” is not particularly unaffordable, even if you’re all for those things…

@cowalker
The “near universal” rejection or disobedience to this doctrine, is nowhere near as “universal” as is constantly claimed - usually “95-98% of all Catholics”.

“All Catholics” would include the huge percentage of Catholics both over and under child bearing age, as well as the huge percentage of Catholics who live in countries that ban abortion and at least restrict artificial birth control.

The only way such “studies” are accurate, is that they discovered that 95-98% of all “self identified Catholics who we actually asked in a limited poll in the United States” reject this doctrine.

Additionally, Catholic doctrine isn’t subject to democracy. The Catholic Church assumes less authority than any other church on earth, which all feel free to change the deposit of faith as the windw of opinion & current events blow.

I understand the fear that people might leave the Church because it has “hard sayings”.

But the question isn’t whether the Church will embrace things that are wrong, but whether those who can’t accept such “hard sayings” will have the Church.

God may be sad, but doesn’t lose His authority because people reject him. While the Church is not God, the principle applies the same way.

cowalker: You say the Republicans “don’t seem to be inclined to make religion a centerpiece of their campaigns.” Why should they? We are voting for politicians, not pastors. The HHS issue is not a religious issue, but a religious freedom issue, per the first amendment.

Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 3:30 PM (EST):

Posted by William F. Folger on Thursday, Feb 9, 2012 1:33 PM (EST)
“Therefore, why not be smart and encourage imperfect Republicans to talk-up and heed psalm 127 and to end their speeches with a *sincere* “Praise God America, for America needs God”. We could call such talk “Intelligent God-Talk” (“IGT”). Non-preachy yet admitting our dependence on God.”

I’m just saying that Republican motives for attacking the administration on this matter are political. It’s just another issue to be wielded as a weapon. They don’t need any encouragement to do this, but they don’t seem to be inclined to make religion a centerpiece of their campaigns.

It is an observable fact that the bishops’ current actions are focused on the legal obligations of church-owned businesses, while they continue to ignore contraception and sterilization as a pastoral matter. They don’t want to push, because they know it won’t even lead to rebellion, as it did in back in 1968 and 1969. (Check out old news stories about Cardinal O’Boyle’s confrontations with priests who disagreed with Humanae Vitae.) If push comes to shove, people will simply leave the church instead of trying to change it. There is no longer a general belief that salvation comes only through one particular church, or even one particular religion. There are millions of mixed faith marriages in America, and it’s commonly believed that it’s barbaric to assume that sincerely believing or unbelieving people will go to hell for their particular belief or unbelief.

The tools available to the bishops for getting people to follow Church teachings are more limited than ever before.

Posted by Raymond Ryan on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 3:06 PM (EST):

Someone please now create a poll for past Obama voters say they will not vote for him again at least until this HHS Mandate is rescinded. Someone please do this NOW. I will be the first signer- Raymond J. Ryan Essex, ct

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 2:38 PM (EST):

Do Catholics really believe what they profess to believe in the Sunday Mass Profession of Faith? Do they really believe what they pray in the Lord’s Prayer standing before Jesus in the Eucharist during the Mass?
Catholics say they believe in “the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life….” They pray to God the Father for His “will be done on earth….”

Does God create life for it to be aborted? Is it God’s will that humans place their will ahead of His by using mechanical means to prevent His creation while they engage in the pleasure of the act that produces new life? Do Catholics REALLY believe what they say they believe and pray for?

If so, how could there ever be Catholic Democrats?

Posted by William F. Folger on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 2:33 PM (EST):

@ cowalker
With whom do you walk? Are you willing to tell us that despite some remarks you are a magisterium-faithful Catholic? In allowing Jesus to be betrayed by Judas from *within* Jesus’ closest Circle, God warns that betrayals to various degrees and from many sources within His Church will continue down the timeline. After all, human nature is a constant and not all Free Wills wish to worship God. However, God also assures us the gates of hell will not prevail. Further, Satan will not be able to say to God: “See, you needed a little bit of my brew to be victorious”. That’s because there will be too many to remind Satan of Romans 3:8. Many Bishops will come around on teaching Humanae Vitae and NFP; but so must enough believers become receptive if the society is to enjoy success with prolonged security. Sadly, we humans most often learn the hard way.
.
The wise way to pursue happiness for society during this historic 2012 Election campaign is to heed psalm 127: “Unless the Lord build the house (i.e., society, from family upward) they labor (us & politicians we elect) in vain who build” (the society FAILS, as now). But in the Republican debates only Rick Santorum comes close to acknowledging 127. If we love our children and grandchildren we will encourage Mr. Santorum to cite the ALL-IMPORTANT message in psalm 127, applicable down the Ages.
.
So, it’s not just evil that repeats: God also gives positive guidance in the long-ago that continues to apply in the future. From most of the candidate-debaters, however, we hear of how their economic plans will save America yet with almost no reference to needing God’s guidance for that and on major moral matters they often dodge. God dispersed His own people far from their homeland, to discipline and punish them. Hence He is not averse to letting America be severely disciplined in other ways. Therefore, why not be smart and encourage imperfect Republicans to talk-up and heed psalm 127 and to end their speeches with a *sincere* “Praise God America, for America needs God”. We could call such talk “Intelligent God-Talk” (“IGT”). Non-preachy yet admitting our dependence on God.
.
What say you, cowalker?

Posted by William J Quinn on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 2:06 PM (EST):

I submit that contraception and it’s ultimate expression, abortion, is the greatest scourge in both blood and treasure tovever afflict mankind. HUMANAE VITAE was brilliant, and ignored from our pulpits. You cannot be a Democrat and Catholic. What this administration has done is strongly redolent of Berlin, 1933.

Posted by GB on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 12:16 PM (EST):

I wholeheartedly agreed with KS’s post - since when is pregnancy an “illness”? He must just want to do away with Americans completely like how Europe is heading. It is a CHILD. Where are the child’s rights? I would say murder is the highest form of discrimination. And, what about us women baby boomers? What does Obama want US to have since we are out of child-bearing age? Do we get free mammograms, dental appts., (I could use new glasses) etc. AND, is Obama saying that people are mere animals and cannot abstain from sex? Our sexual drive is something we just can’t control? What about all the people who want to stop smoking - that IS a real issue - I think all people who want to stop smoking should get free meds and classes so they can quit, and prevent cancers, heat disease, etc. by helping them quit. I saw the best bumper sticker the other day, “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant”. Will he make Jewish delis serve non-kosher beef, bacon, ham, etc. and will he take away the prayer rooms for Muslims that some companies have provided? What about the separation of Church and State? We need to pray, pray, pray and pray some more.

Posted by Irene on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:56 AM (EST):

We all need to keep praying the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel to help in this manor as recomnded by Bishops and Pope John Paul II many years ago, Satin continued to try to get our souls.

Posted by Gwen on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:50 AM (EST):

I wholeheartedly agreed with KS’s post - since when is pregnancy an “illness”? He must just want to do away with Americans completely like Europe is heading. It is a CHILD. Where are the CHILD’s rights and why are they being discriminated against - it’s the new Holocaust - just exterminate anyone you don’t want, like trash. And, what about us women baby boomers? What does Obama want US to have since we are out of child-bearing age? Do we get free mammograms, dental appts., etc. AND, is Obama saying that people are mere animals and cannot abstain from sex? Our sexual drive is something we just can’t control? What about all the people who want to stop smoking - that IS a real issue - I think all people who want to stop smoking should get free meds and classes so they can quit, and prevent cancers, heat disease, etc. by helping them quit. I saw the best bumper sticker the other day, “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant”. Will he make Jewish delis serve non-kosher beef, bacon, ham, etc. and will he take away the prayer rooms for Muslims that some companies have provided? What about the separation of Church and State? We need to pray, pray, pray and pray some more.

Posted by merno on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:47 AM (EST):

Here doggie. How good! What the administration is trying to do would be similar to forcing everyone to carry a concealed weapon, even though many do not believe in guns. Now, this would be true “protective” health care, “preventive” health cre ... what’s the difference? You can’t force these types of things on people. Contraception as “preventive health care?” Hardly. Babies aren’t an illness. Let’s just call contraception what it is, control ... “population control” ... but nothing to do with “health.” What a sick bunch of twisted beaurocrats pushing for their desires, all with an alterior motive. Can anyone say “China?”

Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:39 AM (EST):

Steven D. Greydanus on Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 5:09 PM (EST):
“I’m glad this crisis has helped many of [the bishops] find their voice, their fight, their assertiveness. I wish it hadn’t taken a threat to the Church’s bottom line to do it. I hope they recognize that the fight is going to be a lot harder because of the laxity of the past several decades.”

“The fight” you refer to is a fight against a government mandate that would require church-run businesses to provide a benefit that would include services prohibited by church doctrine. The bishops are lucky that Republican politicians eagerly snatched up their cause as a stick to beat Obama with, because the majority of Catholics disagree with them on this doctrine.

Note that the bishops still aren’t saying a word about the nearly universal rejection of this doctrine by the Catholic laity. Are they requiring priests to ask Catholics making their confession if they use contraceptives or have had a vasectomy/tubal ligation? What percentage of Catholics even participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation annually as Church law requires? What percentage of Catholics know what the Church’s laws are? If the mandate is removed, it will have zero effect on the number of Catholics using contraceptives or undergoing surgical sterilization. They just won’t be financed through Church-provided employee benefits, so the bishops’ personal consciences can be clear. A very small hooray for the fighting bishops.

But in fairness to those bishops, there are very logical reasons for their pragmatic stance. I know many conservative Catholics don’t understand why politicians like Pelosi and Sebelius haven’t been execommunicated. The problem is, that’s the last arrow in the bishops’ quiver. What if they use it and no one really cares? The first excommunication would send a shock wave. Each one following would be progressively weaker in its effect on Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The thing is, very, very few people believe anymore that there is only one church that offers salvation. I’m sure Pelosi and Sebelius could attend Episcopal or Lutheran services without fearing for their souls. What would the bishops do then? Would they go on to try cleanse the church of Catholics who don’t follow the doctrine on contraception and sterilization?

It looks terribly hypocritical, but I don’t really think the bishops have much choice about tolerating nearly universal disobedience to church doctrine in this matter.

EWTN FILES SUIT against Sebelius in US District Court to block the HHS mandate as unconstitutional.

Posted by Al from Fl on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 11:15 AM (EST):

Now we know why the Pres cancelled the “conscience clause”. He and his Czars intend to replace your conscience with a Gov’t mandate - Gov’t replaces God. You can spin this any way you want but this is a serious violation of the first amendment and should never be allowed in the U.S.A. I’m tired of the continual redefinition of what is a right and what is medical treatment and what equality means etc. One by one, the liberals go down this line of reasonable rationale to take away our freedom. Elizabeth, we need good, ethical people that know the constitution and American values for leadership - after all, we have a lot of “catholics” leading the charge in the democrat party who are responsible for the outrageous decline in morality in this country. (Pelosi,Durbin, Kerry,Leahy ... the list goes on - need I add more?)

Posted by GB on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 10:11 AM (EST):

I wholeheartedly agreed with KS’s post - since when is pregnancy an “illness”? He must just want to do away with Americans completely like Europe is heading. It is a CHILD. And, what about us women baby boomers? What does Obama want US to have since we are out of child-bearing age? Do we get free mammograms, dental appts., etc. AND, is Obama saying that people are mere animals and cannot abstain from sex? Our sexual drive is something we just can’t control? What about all the people who want to stop smoking - that IS a real issue - I think all people who want to stop smoking should get free meds and classes so they can quit, and prevent cancers, heat disease, etc. by helping them quit. I saw the best bumper sticker the other day, “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant”. Will he make Jewish delis serve non-kosher beef, bacon, ham, etc. and will he take away the prayer rooms for Muslims that some companies have provided? What about the separation of Church and State? We need to pray, pray, pray and pray some more.

Posted by dch on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 9:59 AM (EST):

This battle reveals to many that the RCCs real target is CONTRACEPTION - if the GOP takes that up as a cause they will get crushed as there is ZERO support for restricting access to contraception in the USA. Its a catholic dogma that will make the RCC look like something from the middle ages….oh wait.

Posted by mk on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 9:44 AM (EST):

While it is most disturbing what the Obama administration has done, it is more disturbing to hear people (Catholics especially) agreeing with them. When I hear young people at university saying they WANT contraception coverage, when I hear Pelosi spout off about standing with other Catholics (and she is right…plenty of other Catholics to stand with), my heart just breaks. People will continue to donate to Susan G and people will continue to demand rights that don’t exist…*sigh*....just so dang sad.

Posted by Lizzie on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 9:42 AM (EST):

I attend an ecumenical ministry workshop once a week, the majority of participants are liberal Protestants. Of the eleven of us who met last night, only one supported the mandate. Most of the others definitely believe Obama should throw PP under the bus or this whole thing is going to explode in his face. I agree with them about the explosion but hope Obama refuses to back down. He will pay for it at the ballot box as will many Democrat Congressmen attempting to ride his coat tails. This isn’t the kind of issue that normally costs someone an election, but the independent voters, who Obama needs to get reelected, have simply had enough.

John Scotto: Thanks for the correction. The word I wanted was “overturn.” Stumblings of a sleep-deprived brain!

Posted by Wes on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 8:55 AM (EST):

Regardless of what the outcome is on this Catholics must never be fooled by Obama again. I thought he was evil in 2007 and I am more convinced of it now. And all evil people only surround themselves by other evil people. The devil cannot stand good, only the absense of it.

Posted by David Paggi on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 8:50 AM (EST):

This is the best teaching moment that has occurred since Humanae Vitae.Even media outlets which are normally quite hostile to the Church have expressed dismay at the crass brutality of this administration. Now is the time for faithful Catholics to speak forcefully at every opportunity to articulate the gospel of life.

Pride goeth before a fall. The massive arrogance of an administration intoxicated by power lies exposed by its own hubris. Seize this opportunity!

Posted by John Scotto on Thursday, Feb, 9, 2012 7:32 AM (EST):

Just a technical correction here - Congress cannot “veto” anything that’s a presidential power. Congress can pass bills which is what Rep Boehner is proposing. Mr Axelrod refused to promise that the President would not veto the bill if it got to the President’s desk. If the pres vetoed it then Congress would have the opportunity to override. Not trying to lecture but sometimes in the political scuffling we forget who gets to do what under the Constitution.

Posted by Linus on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:56 PM (EST):

We are going to have to take to the street and we are going to have to engage in civil disobedience, we may have to go to jail, we may have to die.

Posted by taad on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:47 PM (EST):

One other thing, does the administration really think it will win out in the end? Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, ... Who is still standing. These guys are two bit thugs. Christ will prevail! He is with us!

Posted by taad on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:43 PM (EST):

Do not blame these bishops. The bishops to blame have already passed onto their judgement. These bishops we have are some of the best bishops in my life time of 54 years. Give them time. They are faithful and good men. I will stand with them. They will do what is right.

Posted by Deb on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 10:12 PM (EST):

After hearing nothing from my pastor for two weeks I finally sent him and email Monday asking if he was going to inform our parishioners about this egregious mandate from the Obama administration. It’s Wednesday and I’m still waiting for a reply. In my parish, it’s as if this great battle is not even happening.

WhoCares: You’re wrong. We are not alone. And we are going to win this.

1. According to a Rasmussen poll, 65% of Catholic voters oppose the mandate, as do 62% of Evangelical Protestants and 50% of other Protestants. Overall, only 39% of voters support the mandate, compared to 50% against. That’s more than a 10-point spread in our favor.

3. Even Obama’s most loyal Catholic supporters—Doug Kmiec, Michael Sean Winters, E. J. Dionne—are turning against the administration on this. Sames goes for Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame, who insisted on rolling out the red carpet for Obama and giving him an honorary degree in spite of sharp criticism from bishops and many Catholics.

5. Major mainstream media outlets have published editorials rejecting the administration’s actions as contrary to first amendment rights, including USA Today, the Washington Post, NY Daily News and others. Conservative publications like National Review and Wall Street Journal have done the same.

6. Over 150 members of Congress signed a letter to the administration urging that the mandate be dropped. Speaker John Boehner has vowed to overturn the mandate. The administration continues to voice support for the mandate—but, significantly, press secretary Carney wouldn’t commit Obama to overriding a veto.

7. Finally, there’s a lot of legal opinion out there that this just won’t square with the first amendment. There is every reason to hope and expect that the courts would strike it down, if it came to that.

Posted by WhoCares on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 8:48 PM (EST):

We’ve already lost this one. All my nominally Protestant neighbors think the Catholics are overreacting. All my nominally Catholic neighbors think the hierarchy are overreacting. All my atheist/agnostic neighbors are absolutely giddy that the Catholic church is being rolled up and silenced; dispatched to a dark, dank cell for “re-education.”

We stand alone before our enemies. Prepare for painful persecution.

Posted by Kevin on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 7:17 PM (EST):

Bloody Pirates!!!! Governement GOONS gone WILD!!!!

May they all get flat tires and ink stains on their dress shirt cuffs tomorrow.

...and this is the most Christian response that I can possibly muster at the moment! (I suppose this is where confession comes in…)

C E, I hear you, and maybe that describes a lot of people. I can only say that when it comes to my loyal disappointment with many of the bishops, it doesn’t describe me. There’s nothing in the world I want more than to be able to cheer for our bishops, and it doesn’t take a LOT to get me cheering.

I’m glad this crisis has helped many of them find their voice, their fight, their assertiveness. I wish it hadn’t taken a threat to the Church’s bottom line to do it. I hope they recognize that the fight is going to be a lot harder because of the laxity of the past several decades. One way or another, we have some bitter medicine ahead. We’ll be taking it the hard way or the even harder way.

Posted by C E Miller on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 6:00 PM (EST):

Yeah….Steve, he took Peter to the woodshed on that one, didn’t he? I think they were still friends though. He might have been willing to forgive him as well. But that was then and this is now, when we seem all too eager to have our pound of flesh.

Rita: Have you ever heard of the first amendment? Conscience rights ring a bell?

Posted by C E Miller on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 5:34 PM (EST):

@ Rita-!. Go buy a bottle of asprin….how expensive is that? 2. Take one tablet and place it between your knees. 3. Maintain constant pressure on the tablet, using your thighs only…..Voila! Affordable contraception.

C E Miller: The “least of the apostles” was not an apostle at all, but an enemy of Christ, when he was knocked off his horse. Once he became an apostle, the standards of accountability became quite different. How did the least of the apostles himself respond to the chief of the apostles when the latter was failing in his pastoral duties to Gentile Christians? See Galatians 2.

“Riding lessons” implies an acknowledgment that one is not yet riding proficiently. For one in high office who ought to be riding proficiently, it implies awareness of failure. I haven’t yet seen such awareness of failure in this regard. I haven’t seen our pastors say “We haven’t taught the unfashionable bits of the faith as we ought. We haven’t maintained discipline as we ought.”

Posted by Rene on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 5:27 PM (EST):

The chickens are coming home to roost for the liberal Catholic Church in the U.S. The HHS mandate and the Obama administration’s assumption that most Catholics are not going to react very negatively, is a logical result of so many bishops, priests, nuns, and laypeople ebracing what Pope Bendict XVI has called the hermeneutics of rupture (in the vernacular, the Spirit of Vatican II) when interpreting The Council of Vatican II. When was the last time you heard contraception being condemned from the pulpit? If so many Catholics practice contraception, how come most of those attending Sunday mass take communion? Don’t they believe that they are offending God? What we may be seing here is God’s pusnishment for the lack of fidelity by so many catholics to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Posted by C E Miller on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 5:25 PM (EST):

Steven-Oh yeah…how can we help them? Well…um…Unity with them?? The least of the apostles had to get knocked off his horse and go blind before he got the message. Maybe we can go over and brush them off and see if they are ok and not criticize them for poor horsemanship. If the letter we got from my Archbishop is any indication, they’ve all signed up for riding lessons.

Posted by Rita on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 5:20 PM (EST):

@ Mary:
Obama started this now because 1. it takes time for changes in healthcare policies to be incorporated in the current system; and 2. IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR AND VOTERS WANT AFFORDABLE CONTRACEPTION!

Good Morning. We’re all just fresh out of bed up here in the vast reaches of the Great Frozen North. It has it’s advantages, living in one of the last time zones before tomorrow, in that several hours of commentary have been generated long before our feet hit the floor. An analyst I am not, but I do have a flair for the obvious. After a caffeine fueled review of several offerings,it seems today’s cachet is infighting. While some posts are more directed to the problem at hand, too many take on the character of friendly fire. Potshots at the Bishops, Gospel grenades and scriptural shelling to underscore this or that position or to undermine another. We have forgotten who the enemy is. It is not us. There is plenty of blame to go around, but while we’re out afield looking for the scapegoat, the enemy is scaling the wall. We are getting bogged down in the mud of minutia. Put down the ordinance and make an appointment to get the beam taken out.

I cna’t believe how many of you are surprised at what Obama has done. Forget about what he reads from his teleprompter, watch what he does. He will always support the radical feminists and pro abortion crowd. Want to stop it? Don’t elect him next fall. You will also do a favor to all those 5 million people who have lost their jobs the last 3 years and given up trying to find one (when they give up the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t count them when computing the unemployment rate.) The BlS said 1.2 million unemployed quit looking in January (that took some doing, for one month!) That is how they got the unemployment number to drop!

Posted by Don Barnett on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 4:09 PM (EST):

The administration is ignoring the “Hosanna v. EEOC SCOTUS (9-0) decision of January 11, 2012:
In the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the Hosanna v EEOC case on Jan 11, 2012, Chief Justice Roberts, siding with the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical School and dismissing the ADA lawsuit filed on behalf of a fired employee, writes:

“…the First Amendment itself,… gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justices Alito and Kagen write:

“To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies “independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, mat¬ters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

Posted by Mary on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 4:06 PM (EST):

This mandate will not be enforced for over 1 year.
Why did the Obama Administration pick this fight now?
During an election year?
Why not wait until after the election?
-
I sound suspicious, you say. Well, Yeah.

Posted by JohnScanlon on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 3:59 PM (EST):

The Obama-Sebelius attack on the institutional Catholic church is truly an attack on the First Amendment. Add to this the Big Threes’ (ABC, NBC, CBS) and our putative newspaper of record (The New York Times), attack on the freedom of association (that’s upon Komen) and we all are in for a rough period of anti-freedom in our nation. Thanks to the Trinity the Catholic hierarchy is showing some spine and is distancing itself from the frequent American Catholic genuflection towards all things Democrat party. Many of good will, too, are joining the dissent and affirming Constitutional order. We need to also support Komen’s right to associate with whom it will. If they choose to contribute to the nation’s leading provider of abortion, then pro-lifers will dissent from that. If they cut such an unnecessary tie, pro-lifers will support in spades.

Posted by M. Forrest on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 3:54 PM (EST):

When used in reference to pharmaceuticals, the definition of “medicine” is: “A drug or other preparation used for the treatment or prevention of DISEASE.”

If contraception is medicine, then what precisely is the disease it treats or prevents?

Pregnancy.

It’s little wonder that 50 million unborn children have been killed in this country with that confused and perverse mind-set. How strange that it’s considered “medicine” to stop a human body from functioning in its normal, healthy way.

Posted by Ramirez on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 3:42 PM (EST):

Elise—it’s true that the pill isn’t intended to prevent implantation, but the IUD definitely is. Maybe that’s what Patricia was thinking of?

Posted by Sarah M on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 3:16 PM (EST):

Obama probably isn’t backing down, but who can blame people for hoping he will? I understand many of those saying “Well that clears things up” are self-named “progressive” Catholics and Obama supporters. But not everyone who desires the seemingly easiest way out of this is ignorant, or a liberal. Obama’s platform of hope and change was perfect, because to this day I have to constantly hope he changes his mind about everything! We should not lower our voices, but please don’t blame those who want to see a glimmer of light in the darkness.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 3:00 PM (EST):

(and hillsides for infant exposure)

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 2:59 PM (EST):

We don’t become pregnant by drinking the water. Of course contraceptives are NOT health care. Providing abortion and contraception for a self indulgent populace is like asking the early Christians to provide vomitoriums to Romans.

Posted by Raymond Ryan on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 2:13 PM (EST):

I will not again vote for Obama as long as this HHS edict is on the books. Further, Sibelius should resign for giving wrong and stupid political advice, whether she is nominally Catholic or not. God bless us all. RJR

Posted by K.S. on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 12:54 PM (EST):

I agree whole-heartedly that the Administration is not backing down. Sadly, I’m still stuck on the fact that contraception is considered preventative care.

You have a mastectomy to prevent (re)occurence of breast cancer. You take immune suppressing drugs to prevent a fatal rejection of transplanted organs. You get contraception to prevent a pregnancy (which - in most cases - does not result in death or severe, long-term disability).

I just don’t get it. And now access to contraception is a RIGHT. Unbelievable.

Kate Madrid: Contraception isn’t the only evil in our midst, but it’s the linchpin of the evil the Church is being ordered to participate in at the moment.

I’m glad you frequent the sacrament of penance! Do you often have to confess sins that large majorities of even churchgoing Catholics not only practice but don’t even consider to be a sin—and which we almost never hear about from the pulpit?

Jonah is indeed the prophet to those outside the people of God. Other prophets railed against Israel’s own sins, thank God, and it was for those, not those of Nineveh, that God’s people were led away in exile to Babylon.

Posted by Kate Madrid on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:57 AM (EST):

Amen Nathan. And contraception isn’t the only evil in our midst. I myself don’t contracept but still need to spend some time in the confessional every week. It is interesting that Jonah was the prophet referenced because my understanding of the book of Jonah is that it is Jonah that fails to convert, everybody else ( the sailors, the Ninevites, even the cows) converts at his prophecy. Jonah is a call to convert our own hearts to love those outside the church. And God asks us “do you do well to be angry?”

Nathan: How do you know how fast or slow anyone has been to “jump on the bishops”? The case of Nancy Pelosi, for example, has dragged on for many years. Archbishop Niederauer publicly invited Pelosi to meet with him all the way back in 2008 in response to her defense of abortion as compatible with Catholic teaching. No one knows whether anything came of that. The situation just evaporated. Are you saying that Catholics should never express concern, disappointment, scandal or criticism of the bishops? Do you see any indication here of anyone failing to offer obedience to the bishops? How exactly do you propose that we help them? What concrete advice do you have for us?

Posted by Nathan on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:44 AM (EST):

Everyone is quick to jump on the bishops, I wonder if first century Christians did the same to Sts. Peter and Paul? Maybe we should help our bishops and (gasp) offer them the obedience we owe them as faithful Catholics instead of complaining about them constantly because they aren’t perfect.

Posted by Elise on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 11:43 AM (EST):

Patricia - that is not exactly true about the pill being like a monthly abortion. It is true that what you describe can happen, and I am not defending the practice of using them, but not allowing for implantation is not the normal action for hormonal contraception. After using them, a woman’s hormonal system is usually so screwed up that it becomes quite difficult to conceive even after going off the pill.

The Church needs to stand firm. God is in control over creation, and each of us will have to answer to Him for our own decisions. Birth control is a monthly abortion in a box. Conception still happens except the menus lining is to thin to support the fertilized egg, so it is discarded because conditions in the uterus aren’t right due to hormonal manipulation created by the pill.People need to be accountable for their actions, not the government. The Church is accountable to God, not the world, and when you are right no compromise is necessary.

From the “Things the bishops could be doing to reclaim their moral authority and the weight of Catholic teaching” department: Ed Peters and Father Z have a suggestion. Invoke canon 915 regarding Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by Elizabeth on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 10:41 AM (EST):

This is why we need a Catholic in the White House! I just pray all those Catholics for Obama that were such a driving force behind him last election dust off the old Catechism book and see who they supported.

@Anonymous: “I have learned that Obama already thinks he did make a compromise by limiting the exemption to churches themselves” Yes, the last quotation from Axelrod above says as much.

@Elise: I don’t know that I would accuse the bishops of “whining,” but I agree that there is huge culpability here within the Church, and that our pastors naturally bear a disproportionate share of that burden. In fact, just yesterday I tweeted “Pastors sowed the wind…reap whirlwind”—in reference to polls showing that a majority of Catholics think that contraception should be part of healthcare coverage for workers in Catholic institutions!

We have failed to proclaim and insist on what our Church says we stand for. Disciplinary measures called for in canon law have not been enforced. Some of our pastors thought they were being, well, “pastoral.” To an extent, what is happening now can be seen as “chickens coming home to roost.”

For decades too many of our pastors have effectively treated the Church’s teaching on contraception as if it were optional, or at least unimportant. Now they are finding that that proposition comes with a cost not only of souls but of dollars. Perhaps in the past they feared that insisting too loudly on the teaching would also come at a cost of souls (and dollars), if it drove people away from the Church. But how can we save people’s souls, or even ask for their dollars, if we don’t stand up for what we say we believe?

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 10:17 AM (EST):

In reading pro-choie information, I have learned that Obama already thinks he did make a compromise by limiting the exemption to churches themselves (Planned Parenthood et al. wanted the mandate to cover churches, too.) Before last week, I was sure that Obama would throw Planned Parenthood under the bus and reverse the mandate in order before the election in order to win. But, having seen the PP shakedown of Komen last week, he knows he can’t do that. Now I predict that we will see bi-partisan support for the exemption legislation in Congress; O’s people will line up enough Democrats to vote for it so the mandate is no longer an election issue for him without him having to either stand by it or reverse it.

Posted by elise on Wednesday, Feb, 8, 2012 10:04 AM (EST):

The bishops need to stop whining and look in the Old Testament for what God does to His people when they don’t follow in His ways. Generations of Catholics ignorant of the faith and politicians who openly and enthusiastically promote abortion and gay marriage with no censure from their bishop——and they wonder why God would use the “world” to slap them upside the head!

I am waiting for just ONE good bishop to stand up and say, “We deserve this. We have been silent. We have been complicit. We haven’t taught our flock. We haven’t stood up for Jesus. We have made deals with the politicians for our own power’s sake. We are being dragged to Babylon and our flock with us for our own just punishment. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa!”.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Steven D. Greydanus

Deacon Steven D. Greydanus is film critic for the National Catholic Register, creator of Decent Films, and a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of Newark.

With David DiCerto, he co-hosts the Gabriel Award–winning cable TV show “Reel Faith” for New Evangelization Television. Steven has degrees in media arts and religious studies, and has contributed several entries to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, including “The Church and Film” and a number of filmmaker biographies. He has also written about film for the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy.

He has a BFA in Media Arts from the School of Visual Arts in New York, and an MA in Religious Studies from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, PA. Steven and his wife Suzanne have seven children.